Study Tools

The First Years of the Union (1797-1809)

Jefferson's Early Days in Office

The Louisiana Purchase

Summary

The composition of the judicial branch of the national government was a major
point of contention in the early years of Thomas Jefferson's presidency. In
1800, when Jefferson was elected, not a single Republican held a federal
judgeship. Republicans were further infuriated by the Federalists'
Judiciary Act of 1801, passed on February 27, just five days before Jefferson's
inauguration. While the main thrust of the act was the creation of sixteen new
federal judgeships to ease the load on the Supreme Court, the most concerning
clause, to Republicans, was that which cut the number of Supreme Court Justices
from six to five. This would deny Jefferson his first opportunity to appoint a
Supreme Court justice, and ensure a Federalist court for years to come. While
many radical Republicans insisted that judges should be elected and not
appointed, Jefferson was not radical enough to agree, and he did not challenge
the powers of the courts. He did, however, challenge Federalist control of the
courts.

One of the Jefferson administration's most controversial episodes with the
judicial system was the case of William Marbury. On his last day in office,
March 3, 1801, John Adams had appointed Marbury, an obscure Federalist, as
justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. This was one of many so-
called midnight appointments. However, he failed to deliver the commission
by midnight of March 3. Jefferson's secretary of state, James Madison,
refused to deliver the commission, electing instead to hold the position open
for a Republican appointment. Marbury, in response, asked the Supreme Court for
a writ of mandamus, which would force Madison to deliver the commission.

The Supreme Court did not rule on the case of Marbury v. Madison
until February 1803, before which, Jefferson had successfully won the repeal of
the Judiciary Act of 1801. Many Federalists thought their power in the
Judiciary had been crushed. However, Chief Justice John Marshall
demonstrated the considerable power still wielded by the Federalist-dominated
judicial branch in his decision in Marbury v. Madison. Marshall and the
court denied Marbury's request for a writ of mandamus, ruling not that he did
not deserve it, but rather, that Congress had overstepped its constitutional
bounds by giving the Supreme Court the authority to issue such a writ in the
Judiciary Act of 1789. This was the first time an act passed by Congress was
declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. This power, called judicial
review, was not invoked again for 54 years, but the precedent had been set.

Meanwhile, Republicans had taken steps to impeach two Federalist judges, John
Pickering and Samuel Chase. Pickering was a well-known alcoholic whose actions
in the courtroom demonstrated that he was clinically insane. Chase had been one
of the most overzealous enforcers of the Alien and Sedition Acts,
imprisoning several Republican leaders and journalists. The Senate voted to
convict Pickering on March 12, 1804. Chase, on the other hand, was acquitted
shortly after. With this acquittal, Jefferson's battle with the judiciary
effectively ended. Jefferson did not interfere with the judiciary after 1804,
and his relations with the judicial branch as a whole were generally amiable.

Commentary

Recalling the enthusiasm with which the federal judiciary had enforced the Alien
and Sedition Acts, and bemoaning the absence of Republicans in federal judicial
positions, Jefferson feared the judiciary would remain a Federalist stronghold
and provide a major roadblock to his initiatives. He was further disheartened
by John Adams' actions during his final months in office. Between December 12,
1800, when it became clear that he would not win reelection, and the day of
Jefferson's inauguration, March 4, 1801, Adams appointed a significant number of
federal judges. These midnight appointments consisted exclusively of
Federalists, most of which had previous political or familial ties to prominent
party members. The nation had never experienced a transition from one party to
another in the executive branch, and therefore there was no precedent for how to
deal with appointments made by a predecessor of a different party. Jefferson at
first declared that he would not dismiss any Federalist appointees. However,
under pressure from position-seekers in his party, he later altered that
promise, agreeing to dismiss all appointees commissioned by Adams after December
12.

Marshall's decision in Marbury v. Madison has been hailed as one of the
most important in US history. The principle of judicial review, not exercised
again until 1857, nevertheless has been a major feature of the judicial branch
throughout American history. Despite the objections of some of his more radical
Republican colleagues, Jefferson did support the principle of judicial review.
He simply argued that other branches of the government should have the right to
review the constitutionality of laws as well. Since Marshall's opinion
contained no claim that the courts alone could declare a measure
unconstitutional, Jefferson had no argument with the decision. However,
Marshall used a portion of his decision to lecture Madison (and thus indirectly
Jefferson, his superior) on his moral duty to deliver the commission, as opposed
to his legal obligation. This struck Jefferson as a clear example of Federalist
partisanship, and steeled him further in his battle against the courts.

Impeachment of federal judges was a controversial action not attempted before,
or for more than 50 years after the Republicans attempted to impeach Pickering
and Chase. Though the details of the two cases were very different, the
questions raised by impeachment were universal. The
Constitution provided for impeachment of
federal judges only in cases of "Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors." Thus the question arose of whether impeachment was the correct
method to disbar federal judges who were insane or excessively partisan.
Pickering was convicted, most likely more because he was clearly a hazard to his
courtroom and himself than because he was guilty of high crimes and
misdemeanors. Historians argue that Chase was acquitted largely due to the
failure of John Randolph, a congressman, in the case's prosecution. However,
other historians argue that he may have been acquitted no matter what, because
moderate Republicans were increasingly skeptical of the use of impeachment as a
remedy for excessive partisanship.